HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » FrenchieCat » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

FrenchieCat

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: Northern California
Member since: Mon Oct 13, 2003, 06:47 PM
Number of posts: 67,394

About Me

I cook, paint, write, read, decorate, garden, and volunteer. I'm also a business owner, a mother and a wife. I love you.....no matter what you think of me.

Journal Archives

Why 2012 Will Be a “Close” Election

I so wish I could tell you that the upcoming general election will be close, and that it will be due to the life-and-death seriousness of the issues as they relate to our economy, the environment and our foreign policy — but I cannot honestly say this. I do believe that the 2012 election will be close, but for the wrong reasons; one being that it is how media conglomerates generate large sums for themselves during an election year. So when the media crows again how this will not only be close, but the most expensive ever, don’t think they aren’t at the same time counting on the millions they will earn throughout.

We must understand that the protracted Obama-Hillary primary wars of 2008 were a boon to media coffers! Couple that with the birth of the limitless Super PACs (thanks to our Republican-dominated SCOTUS), and you can easily see what I see: media mavens relying on their potential earnings after facing lean advertising years. If you hadn’t thought about it before, think about it now, while closely observing how desperately reporters are handling the Republican primaries. It may seem quite entertaining at the moment (to some of us), but I would respectfully suggest that we ought to be preparing for what is to come in the general.

Speaking of the current sorry-ass Republican primaries, it is mighty strange that although there is only one halfway electable Republican left standing, we are now witnessing a media-termed “horse race” as we head toward Super PAC-spending Tuesday. It’s not because the alternative candidates to Romney are actually worth anything (because they aren’t); it is because the faster the Republican Primaries end, the less money the Super PAC will spend, and that would greatly reduce the media’s anticipated advertising windfall.

Look, it’s no accident that the media has been all over candidate Romney since his big win in New Hampshire. At the exact time the announcement was made that Mitt held an insurmountable double-digit lead in South Carolina polls, the corporate media got hella serious! To add to the media’s trouble, GOP candidates were dropping like flies, Mitt Romney reeked of the inevitable stench, and the primary season was ending before it had started. But by golly, all was not lost, as we witnessed the re-resurrection of the twice-fallen Newt in just 7 days! I will add that this wasn’t an easy get by any means. Just ask Ginger Chuckie on MSNBC; he seemed quite exhausted with that renewed Newt surge!

More.....http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2012/01/21/why-2012-will-be-a-close-election/#.TxsPyV1JDCI.facebook

Why 2012 Will Be a “Close” Election

I so wish I could tell you that the upcoming general election will be close, and that it will be due to the life-and-death seriousness of the issues as they relate to our economy, the environment and our foreign policy — but I cannot honestly say this. I do believe that the 2012 election will be close, but for the wrong reasons; one being that it is how media conglomerates generate large sums for themselves during an election year. So when the media crows again how this will not only be close, but the most expensive ever, don’t think they aren’t at the same time counting on the millions they will earn throughout.

We must understand that the protracted Obama-Hillary primary wars of 2008 were a boon to media coffers! Couple that with the birth of the limitless Super PACs (thanks to our Republican-dominated SCOTUS), and you can easily see what I see: media mavens relying on their potential earnings after facing lean advertising years. If you hadn’t thought about it before, think about it now, while closely observing how desperately reporters are handling the Republican primaries. It may seem quite entertaining at the moment (to some of us), but I would respectfully suggest that we ought to be preparing for what is to come in the general.

Speaking of the current sorry-ass Republican primaries, it is mighty strange that although there is only one halfway electable Republican left standing, we are now witnessing a media-termed “horse race” as we head toward Super PAC-spending Tuesday. It’s not because the alternative candidates to Romney are actually worth anything (because they aren’t); it is because the faster the Republican Primaries end, the less money the Super PAC will spend, and that would greatly reduce the media’s anticipated advertising windfall.

Look, it’s no accident that the media has been all over candidate Romney since his big win in New Hampshire. At the exact time the announcement was made that Mitt held an insurmountable double-digit lead in South Carolina polls, the corporate media got hella serious! To add to the media’s trouble, GOP candidates were dropping like flies, Mitt Romney reeked of the inevitable stench, and the primary season was ending before it had started. But by golly, all was not lost, as we witnessed the re-resurrection of the twice-fallen Newt in just 7 days! I will add that this wasn’t an easy get by any means. Just ask Ginger Chuckie on MSNBC; he seemed quite exhausted with that renewed Newt surge!

More.....http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2012/01/21/why-2012-will-be-a-close-election/#.TxsPyV1JDCI.facebook

Why 2012 Will Be a “Close” Election

I so wish I could tell you that the upcoming general election will be close, and that it will be due to the life-and-death seriousness of the issues as they relate to our economy, the environment and our foreign policy — but I cannot honestly say this. I do believe that the 2012 election will be close, but for the wrong reasons; one being that it is how media conglomerates generate large sums for themselves during an election year. So when the media crows again how this will not only be close, but the most expensive ever, don’t think they aren’t at the same time counting on the millions they will earn throughout.

We must understand that the protracted Obama-Hillary primary wars of 2008 were a boon to media coffers! Couple that with the birth of the limitless Super PACs (thanks to our Republican-dominated SCOTUS), and you can easily see what I see: media mavens relying on their potential earnings after facing lean advertising years. If you hadn’t thought about it before, think about it now, while closely observing how desperately reporters are handling the Republican primaries. It may seem quite entertaining at the moment (to some of us), but I would respectfully suggest that we ought to be preparing for what is to come in the general.

Speaking of the current sorry-ass Republican primaries, it is mighty strange that although there is only one halfway electable Republican left standing, we are now witnessing a media-termed “horse race” as we head toward Super PAC-spending Tuesday. It’s not because the alternative candidates to Romney are actually worth anything (because they aren’t); it is because the faster the Republican Primaries end, the less money the Super PAC will spend, and that would greatly reduce the media’s anticipated advertising windfall.

Look, it’s no accident that the media has been all over candidate Romney since his big win in New Hampshire. At the exact time the announcement was made that Mitt held an insurmountable double-digit lead in South Carolina polls, the corporate media got hella serious! To add to the media’s trouble, GOP candidates were dropping like flies, Mitt Romney reeked of the inevitable stench, and the primary season was ending before it had started. But by golly, all was not lost, as we witnessed the re-resurrection of the twice-fallen Newt in just 7 days! I will add that this wasn’t an easy get by any means. Just ask Ginger Chuckie on MSNBC; he seemed quite exhausted with that renewed Newt surge!

More.....http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2012/01/21/why-2012-will-be-a-close-election/#.TxsPyV1JDCI.facebook

Obama never secretly killed the public option. It’s a myth.

(just thought I would park this article somewhere.....although it has a Nov 2011 dateline)

Did Obama secretly kill the public option?
The question is still an important one for many liberals. The claim lives on to this day, and is still seen as perhaps the clearest evidence from Obama’s first term that liberals ultimately can’t trust him on their core priorities, and won’t be able to trust him going forward.
<>
The background: There were certainly two significant deals that the White House made with interest groups. One was with the drug companies, to leave re-importation out of health care reform. The second, with the hospitals, limited how much ACA would cost them. But some liberals believed that the White House was also out to get the public option from the beginning. This first arose when problem comes when one HuffPo blogger decided that a David Kirkpatrick story in the New York Times and a later Kirkpatrick interview on MSNBC proved it.....
<>
However, Kirkpatrick, as I read it, only confirmed that there was a deal (on costs) with the hospitals, not that it included the public option. He wrote in the original story that there was a belief that a public option would not wind up in the bill. But that was more an assessment of where the votes were going to fall than part of any agreement. There was nothing there to confirm a deal on the public option.
<>
There simply was no reported deal to kill the public option. If you want to blame someone for killing the public option, blame marginal Democrats, who opposed it, and marginal Republicans (especially Olympia Snowe), who initially backed a version of the bill with the public option before deciding that pretty much all of Obamacare was unconstitutional. There’s no reason to believe that Barack Obama sold out liberals on this one.




Tim Wise gives "certain" Progressives a piece of his mind.......

Of Broken Clocks, Presidential Candidates, and the Confusion of Certain White Liberals
Posted on January 12, 2012


...the so-called progressives who sing the praises of Ron Paul, all because of his views on domestic spying, bailouts for banksters, and military intervention abroad, the fact that 90 percent of his political platform is right-wing boilerplate about slashing taxes on the rich, slashing programs for the poor and working class, breaking unions, drilling for oil anywhere and everywhere, and privatizing everything from retirement programs to health care doesn’t matter: the fact that he’ll ostensibly legalize drugs is enough. And this is so, even though he has merely said he would leave drug laws up to the states (which means 49 separate drug wars, everywhere except maybe Vermont, so ya know, congrats hippies!), and he would oppose spending public money on drug rehab or education, both of which you’d need more of if drugs were legalized, but why let little details like that bother you?
<>
I want those of you who are seriously singing Paul’s praises, while calling yourself progressive or left to ask what it signifies — not about Ron Paul, but about you — that you can look the rest of us in the eye, your political colleagues and allies, and say, in effect, “Well, he might be a little racist, but…

How do you think that sounds to black people, without whom no remotely progressive candidate stands a chance of winning shit in this country at a national level? How does it sound to them — a group that has been more loyal to progressive and left politics than any group in this country — when you praise a man who opposes probably the single most important piece of legislation ever passed in this country, and whose position on the right of businesses to discriminate, places him on the side of the segregated lunchcounter owners? And how do you think they take it that you praise this man, or possibly even support him for president, all so as to teach the black guy currently in the office a lesson for failing to live up to your expectations?

How do you think it sounds to them, right now, this week, as we prepare to mark the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, that you claim to be progressive, and yet you are praising or even encouraging support for a man who voted against that holiday, who opposes almost every aspect of King’s public policy agenda, and the crowning achievements of the movement he helped lead?

My guess is that you don’t think about this at all. Because you don’t have to. One guess as to why not.

More.....(quite a long piece! ) http://www.timwise.org/2012/01/of-broken-clocks-presidential-candidates-and-the-confusion-of-certain-white-liberals/

Huntsman's got the Blondes, and the mistaken notion that he's actually won something

other than a distant, distant 3rd place....after working his heart out in NH!

Jeeze!

So much horseshit coming out of Romney's mouth......right now.....

till it ain't even funny.

It is his party that took us to the brink.
Anyone forgetting that will deserve everything
a Romney Presidency will bring us, Supreme Court and all!

Frederick Douglass gave us our answer long ago.....

As to why the Black POTUS meets with such resistance- "Though the colored man is no longer subject to barter and sale, he is surrounded by an adverse settlement which fetters all his movements. In his downward course he meets with no resistance, but his course upward is resented and resisted at every step of his progress. If he comes in ignorance, rags and... wretchedness he conforms to the popular belief of his character, and in that character he is welcome; but if he shall come as a gentleman, a scholar and a statesman, he is hailed as a contradiction to the national faith concerning his race, and his coming is resented as impudence. In one case he may provoke contempt and derision, but in the other he is an affront to pride and provokes malice." - Frederick Douglass, September 25, 1883
(repost from Melanie Watkins)



Adding.....

Here's one.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=794883&mesg_id=794920

There are other instances when I have disagreed with this President, but you are correct, they are few......

I can surely say that if I were President, I wouldn't necessarily approach certain issues as Pres. Obama has. But I'm not President, so I try not to act as though I have all of the solutions to the many problems that our nation faces, since I'm not sure how I would get the solution actually done....and at the end of the day, that is the key. It is very easy to list problems. Easy to list what is wrong with this country, much of it which has been around longer than this forum has been.

My feeling is that I don't need to shit on someone whose already been damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. I don't believe that doing this will get us anywhere......so my good faith is not wrapped up in how many ways I can criticize the person that I consider to be on my side so much more than the other. My good faith is manifested in how hard I can fight against the Republicans and the Corporate media. That is how I choose to spend my time.

We demand that the President call out Republicans, but few here seldom do. Sure folks here call Republicans names, and such....but we don't actually "do" much to them. We usually don't call them, don't write to them....mainly because some believe that it won't help...which is a wimpy attitude; that somehow they are unreachable, so why bother? How is that courageous or tenacious, or persitent or strong? It just ain't.

Many talk about how President Obama acts often like a Republican, but we forget that many here agree with some main Republican talking points about this President like when calling him a failed leader, and so that kind of good faith only ends up smelling like a good ol' pile-on. Many here, through this forum, influence public opinion to only see flaws in this President.....and since the general public sees that we don't support him, why should they? Yes, we influence public opinion....and for those who think forums such as this doesn't do that....well, that's just not true. If we believed that we influenced nothing, we wouldn't spend time here with our pronouncements, etc....

At the end of the day, I am an optimistic-realist in reference to what the future can be, so I tend not to waste my valuable time criticizing my own (because I don't believe that it advances anything for all of us to do this, since we've already got the media, many here and everywhere else doing a fantastic job criticizing this President constantly, meaning my help isn't required), and instead, I concentrate on those who are so terrible till it hurts just to think about them back in power.

In other words, I've been here in good faith since 2003, and I have always understood that politics in this imperfect union, made up of imperfect folks, including our leaders, is going to continue to be imperfect, as it has been all along. Change is very difficult, expecially due to the environment in this country. It has always been, and always will be. Ask OWS how long they believe the changes they want will take? And whatever answer you get, understand that it might take much longer still. Protestors of the Vietnam War may have finally helped the war end, but how long did it take? one year, two years, three years. or even more? Ask the Civil Rights Movement how long they had to fight? Why would make you think that one man could do it so much faster than millions? Especially one who is criticized on everything he does all of the time?

The way that I see Democrats and Republicans in general is that their leaders represent them well, because the leaders reflect exactly what rank and file are made up of. Many want to say the President caves.....but we also show absolutely no loyalty to this President, as many of us choose to point our fingers at him more often than to point the finger elsewhere (and oftentime there is a strong case to do so)....and yet, if Pres. Obama dares to criticize rank and file Democrats, then we have a shit fit as though we must be perfect...when we surely are not. And we then hold a grudge from that day forward.

Folks have called this President oftentime enough, a wimp. But we are not any less wimpy, considering that we rarely stand up behind this President about anything he proposes, because we are too busy finding flaws in all that there is that he proposes, and whining about what we didn't get. To me, that's a wimpy stance....cause finding flaws is such an easy thing to do. It is much more difficult to support a position that one may only agree with 65%, but for so many, it's all or nothing (meaning don't get anything done, just yell and scream which takes no courage, just a disagreeable disposition--see Republicans)!

We demand that this President uses the bully pulpit, but then we mainly use our own Bully pulpit vehicle to criticize him instead of our opposition.

I understand clearly that the Democratic party is made up of very different folks. In otherwords, I don't believe that I need to prove to you that I am capable of being like you on this forum in order to show good faith. My good faith is through making donations, providing man power to my side (and understand that the ballot offers us the choices that we will have to literally live with) and not helping my enemies. That's how I operate.....because I am who I am....which is I am not you.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8